On prepositions and particles: a case for lexical representation in systemic functional linguistics

References

• Bloor, Tom, & Meriel Bloor. 2004. The functional analysis of English: A Hallidayan approach. 2nd edn. London: Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, Christopher. 1985. Systemic linguistics: Theory and applications. London: Batsford Academic & Educational.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, Christopher. 2003. Structure and function: A guide to three major structural–functional theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Butler, Christopher S. 2013. Systemic functional linguistics, cognitive linguistics and psycholinguistics: Opportunities for dialogue. Functions of Language 20(2). 185–218. doi: 10.1075/fol.20.2.03but
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cappelle, Bert. 2004. The particularity of particles, or why they are not just “intransitive prepositions”. In Hubert Cuyckens, Walter de Mulder, & Tanja Mortelmans (eds), Adpositions of movement, 29–57. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Cappelle, Bert, Yury Shtyrov, & Friedemann Pulvermüller. 2010. Heating up or cooling up the brain? MEG evidence that phrasal verbs are lexical units. Brain and Language 115(3). 189–201. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2010.09.004
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davidse, Kristin. 2017. SFL and the clause: The experiential metafunction. In Tom Bartlett, & Gerard O’Grady (eds), The Routledge handbook of systemic functional linguistics, 79–95. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Debras, Camille. 2010. Prepositions and particles in English: How is there a gradient between the two? Cercles, Occasional Papers, 1–14.
   Google Scholar
• Fawcett, Robin. 2000. A theory of syntax for systemic functional linguistics. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Fawcett, Robin. Forthcoming-a. The functional syntax handbook: Analyzing English at the level of form. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Fawcett, Robin. Forthcoming-b. The functional semantics handbook: Analyzing English at the level of meaning. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Fillmore, Charles. 1979. Lectures on Deixis. Stanford: CSLI.
   Google Scholar
• Fontaine, Lise. 2008. A systemic functional approach to referring expressions: Reconsidering postmodification in the nominal group. PhD thesis. Cardiff: Cardiff University.
   Google Scholar
• Fontaine, Lise. 2012. Analysing English grammar: A systemic functional introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Fontaine, Lise, & David Schönthal. In press. Below the clause: Groups and phrases. In Geoff Thompson, Wendy Bowcher, Lise Fontaine, Jennifer Liang, & David Schönthal (eds), The Cambridge handbook of systemic functional linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. WORD 17(2). 241–92. doi: 10.1080/00437956.1961.11659756
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael. 1963. Class in relation to the axes of chain and choice in language. Linguistics 2. 5–15. Reprinted in Webster, Jonathan. (ed.) 2002. On Grammar. Collected works of MAK Halliday, Vol. 1, 95–105. London: Continuum.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael. 1985. An introduction to functional grammar. London: Edward Arnold.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael, & Christian Matthiessen. 1999. Construing experience through meaning: A language-based approach to cognition. London: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Halliday, Michael, & Christian Matthiessen. 2004. An introduction to functional grammar. 3rd edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, Patrick. 2005. Similes and sets: The English preposition ‘like'. In R. Blatná, & V. Petkevič (eds), Jazyky a jazykove˘da (Languages and linguistics: Festschrift for Professor Fr. Čermák), 1–13. Prague: Philosophy Faculty of the Charles University. Reprinted in Hanks, Patrick, & Rachel Giora (eds). 2012. Metaphor and figurative language. Vol. 6, 150–64. Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Hanks, Patrick. 2013. Lexical analysis: Norms and exploitations. Cambridge: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hasan, Ruqaiya. 1996. The grammarian’s dream: Lexis as most delicate grammar. In Carmel Cloran, David Butt, & Geoff Williams (eds), Ways of saying, ways of meaning: Selected papers of Ruqaiya Hasan, 73–103. London: Cassell.
   Google Scholar
• Heyvaert, Liesbet. 2003. A cognitive-functional approach to nominalization in English. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
   Google Scholar
• Keizer, M. Evelien. 2008. English prepositions in functional discourse grammar. Functions of Language 15(2). 216–56. doi: 10.1075/fol.15.2.03kei
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kilgarriff, Adam et al. 2014. The sketch engine: Ten years on. Lexicography 1. 1–30. http://www.sketchengine.co.uk. doi: 10.1007/s40607-014-0009-9
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald W. 1986. An introduction to cognitive grammar. Cognitive Science 10. 1–40. doi: 10.1207/s15516709cog1001_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol. 1. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lindner, S. 1981. A lexico-semantic analysis of English verb particle constructions with OUT and UP. PhD thesis. San Diego: University of California.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, Lachlan. 1992. English spatial prepositions in functional grammar. Working papers in functional grammar 46.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, Lachlan. 2001. Adverbs and adpositions: The Cinderella categories of functional grammar. Revista Canaria de Estudios Ingleses 42. 119–36.
   Google Scholar
• Mackenzie, Lachlan. 2013. Spatial adpositions between lexicon and grammar. In Lachlan Mackenzie, & Hella Olbertz (eds), Casebook in functional discourse grammar, 67–93. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
   Google Scholar
• Moon, Rosamund. 1997. Vocabulary connections: Multi-word items in English. In Norbert Schmitt, & Michael McCarthy (eds), Vocabulary: Description acquisition and pedagogy, 40–63. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• O’Dowd, Elisabeth. 1998. Prepositions and particles, a discourse-functional account. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• van Rompaey, Tinne, Kristin Davidse, & Peter Petré. 2015. Lexicalization and grammaticalization: The case of the verbo-nominal expressions be on the/one’s way/road. Functions of Language 22(2). 232–63. doi: 10.1075/fol.22.2.03rom
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taverniers, M. 2015. Linguistic change: Connecting grammatical metaphor and grammaticalisation. Plenary Speech Presented at the International Conference on Functional Language Typology, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, December 12–16.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, Gordon. 1998. The lexicogrammar of adjectives: A systemic functional approach to lexis. London: Cassell Academic.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, Gordon. 2006. Between grammar and lexis: Towards a systemic functional account of phraseology. In Christian Matthiessen, Ruqaiya Hasan, & Jonathan Webster (eds), Continuing discourse on language: A functional perspective, 953–77. London: Equinox.
   Google Scholar
• Tucker, Gordon. 2009. In search of the grammarian’s dream: Locating lexis in a systemic functional grammar. In Stefaan Slembrouck, Miriam Taverniers, & Mieke van Herreweghe (eds), From will to well: Studies in linguistics offered to Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, 415–26. Gent: Academia Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, Andrea, & Vyvyan Evans. 2003. The semantics of English prepositions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, Alison. 2008. Formulaic language: Pushing the boundaries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wray, Alison. 2014. Why are we so sure we know what a word is? In John Taylor (ed.), The Oxford handbook of the word, 725–50. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar